January 6, 2021: Insurrection or “normal tourist” visitation?

[cradleandshoot]

Given the unprecedented levels of skullduggery being perpetrated on the country by the 4-time indicted, twice impeached, disgraced former president in courts across the land, it is obvious that the DoJ MUST take equally unprecedented steps to assure a just outcome in the matter of January 6th...

The One Story About Trump That Jack Smith Needs to Tell at the Supreme Court

Given the lengthy delays in former President Donald J. Trump’s criminal trial for federal election subversion, it’s time for the Department of Justice to face facts: Special counsel Jack Smith will likely have only one chance before the November election to tell the public the story of Jan. 6, 2021, and Trump’s role in it. That opportunity will occur not in front of a jury of ordinary citizens, but before the nine justices of the Supreme Court on April 25, when they consider whether Trump is absolutely immune from prosecution for his efforts to remain in the office American voters had decided he must surrender.

Smith is in possession of the fullest story of the events culminating in Jan. 6: a rich and vivid catalog of witness testimony, documents, texts, and emails that even the House committee that investigated the insurrection has never seen or heard. He is ready to display that material before a federal jury in a public trial. But through a series of procedural filings, Trump has managed to move the locus of the case from a trial judge’s courtroom in the District of Columbia to the Supreme Court of the United States.

The court now stands as the sole arbiter of the calendar in the case of United States v. Trump. That’s not because a majority of the justices are likely to rule that Trump is immune from prosecution—that outcome is too far-fetched for even the most cynical observers. It’s because the court, with its gradual process of briefing, argument, deliberation and ruling, even on an expedited basis, completely controls whether a trial and verdict can happen before the inauguration of whoever stands on the Capitol steps in January 2025.

Smith, of course, has a duty to prevail in the Supreme Court on his plainly correct legal argument that Trump is not immune. But as a special prosecutor in one of the most consequential criminal matters in American history, Smith also has a duty to inform the public—especially if the immunity appeal becomes his sole chance to do so in a court of law before voters cast their ballots in November.

..

I'm hoping for your sake that trump doesn't win in November. Your already teetering on the ledge as it is.

[dislaxxic]

You think i'm the only one? The COUNTRY is teetering on the ledge, Cranky. People don't want to live in a country run by that guy. The ones that THINK they do, are buying a pack of lies about what he and his cultists would DO with power if they manage to get it. Those that DO understand what he wants and still support him are going to be getting both barrels right up to November 5th.

The reason people across the land (and beyond) are sounding the alarm as loudly as they is is NOT what you and other low-information ideologues want it so badly to be: TDS or "angry, hateful libs all up in a lather for no good reason about Trump".

Time to plant some beans...

..

[cradleandshoot]

You think i'm the only one? The COUNTRY is teetering on the ledge, Cranky. People don't want to live in a country run by that guy. The ones that THINK they do, are buying a pack of lies about what he and his cultists would DO with power if they manage to get it. Those that DO understand what he wants and still support him are going to be getting both barrels right up to November 5th.

The reason people across the land (and beyond) are sounding the alarm as loudly as they is is NOT what you and other low-information ideologues want it so badly to be: TDS or "angry, hateful libs all up in a lather for no good reason about Trump".

Time to plant some beans...

..

Funny you mentioned beans. I have plans to plant 3 or 4 rows of yellow beans. My damn shoulder surgeries over the past year have caused my beloved vegetable garden to fall in disarray. FTR my beans will be planted in mid May. I'm hoping for your sake that trump doesn't win. I hope you are prepared for what will happen if trump wins.

[CU88a]

This is not from The Onion:

"House Speaker Mike Johnson will go to Mar-a-Lago for “remarks on election integrity” with Donald Trump."

[Seacoaster(1)]

This is not from The Onion:

"House Speaker Mike Johnson will go to Mar-a-Lago for “remarks on election integrity” with Donald Trump."

Feckless Little Man, Thrust into Job that Exceeds Him, Visits Mob Boss for His Orders and Blessing.

There is nothing more broken in government than the House GOP "Majority."

[Seacoaster(1)]

Pretty interesting reading: the Government's sentencing memorandum on some of Marge's and the President's "hostages:"

https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap ... .452.0.pdf

If you support lenity for "the hostages," these are the sorts of people you are supporting and trying to exonerate.

[youthathletics]

The Supreme Court May Throw Out Hundreds Of Jan. 6 Convictions

https://www.yahoo.com/news/supreme-cour ... 07011.html

[a fan]

The Supreme Court May Throw Out Hundreds Of Jan. 6 Convictions

https://www.yahoo.com/news/supreme-cour ... 07011.html

....so green light future Jan6's. Smart.

[cradleandshoot]

The Supreme Court May Throw Out Hundreds Of Jan. 6 Convictions

https://www.yahoo.com/news/supreme-cour ... 07011.html

....so green light future Jan6's. Smart.

I don't think an event like Jan 6 will happen again. I'm guessing the people in charge of security at the US Capitol have developed a more robust security plan that might even include the use of lethal force. So do you know if there is a government game plan for addressing many months of nightly violent protest like the ones that happened in Portland?? I'm only asking for a friend.

[a fan]

The Supreme Court May Throw Out Hundreds Of Jan. 6 Convictions

https://www.yahoo.com/news/supreme-cour ... 07011.html

....so green light future Jan6's. Smart.

I don't think an event like Jan 6 will happen again. I'm guessing the people in charge of security at the US Capitol have developed a more robust security plan that might even include the use of lethal force. So do you know if there is a government game plan for addressing many months of nightly violent protest like the ones that happened in Portland?? I'm only asking for a friend.

Same as DC: threw the ones that they could throw in jail.

And in Portland, unlike Jan 6th? They never made it into the Federal property.

That said, I'd remind you that I said that the one part that WAS worse in Portland, is the attemtped arson. Put me in charge, and I'd INTENTIONAL arson has a severe mandatory minimum. Few things are more reckless than mixing fire with large crowds. Americans should know that that's a one way ticket to Federal or State prison.

[SCLaxAttack]

The Supreme Court May Throw Out Hundreds Of Jan. 6 Convictions

https://www.yahoo.com/news/supreme-cour ... 07011.html

....so green light future Jan6's. Smart.

I don't think an event like Jan 6 will happen again. I'm guessing the people in charge of security at the US Capitol have developed a more robust security plan that might even include the use of lethal force. So do you know if there is a government game plan for addressing many months of nightly violent protest like the ones that happened in Portland?? I'm only asking for a friend.

You’re still at least partially blaming the security in place at the Capitol for what happened. That’s not the issue. The issue is that there’s now a precedence in place - regardless of what election officials, states’ valid electoral college votes, and numerous (was it 61 or more than that?) court rulings - to dispute valid election results - up to and including violence. Just as strengthening security is important, so is punishing those most responsible for Jan 6.

[Seacoaster(1)]

The Supreme Court May Throw Out Hundreds Of Jan. 6 Convictions

https://www.yahoo.com/news/supreme-cour ... 07011.html

....so green light future Jan6's. Smart.

It wouldn't green light more January 6s so much as require Congress to act to fill the gap that would then be created if the statute was construed to require some relationship to document or evidence tampering. Worth noting that the appeal that YA mentions above does not challenge the sufficiency of the felony assault and disorderly conduct charges against these defendants, only the obstruction of an official proceeding under Section 1512(c)(2) of your nation's criminal code. Here is a good article about the legal issues:

https://www.scotusblog.com/2024/04/jan- ... on-charge/

Here is an excerpt from the DC Circuit opinion, reversing the trial judge who found that the statute did not reach the defendant's conduct:

"The government asserts that the words "corruptly . . . obstructs, influences, and impedes any official proceeding" in 18 U.S.C. § 1512(c)(2) have a broad meaning that encompasses all forms of obstructive conduct, including appellees' allegedly violent efforts to stop Congress from certifying the results of the 2020 presidential election. Thus, the government contends, the district court erred when it adopted an unduly narrow interpretation of § 1512(c)(2) that limits the statute's application to obstructive conduct "with respect to a document, record, or other object."

For their part, appellees halfheartedly defend the trial court's interpretation, but more vigorously advance a different argument: that § 1512(c)(2) prohibits obstructive acts related not just to "a record, document, or other object," but also to all acts of general "evidence impairment." Appellees argue that under either the district court's document-focused reading of the statute or their own evidence-impairment theory, appellees' conduct on January 6, 2021, is beyond the reach of § 1512(c)(2). Faced with these three competing interpretations of the statute, we conclude that the government has the best of this argument."

Here's a good article about the case and its potential consequences:

https://www.citizensforethics.org/news/ ... ed-states/

[a fan]

The Supreme Court May Throw Out Hundreds Of Jan. 6 Convictions

https://www.yahoo.com/news/supreme-cour ... 07011.html

....so green light future Jan6's. Smart.

It wouldn't green light more January 6s so much as require Congress to act to fill the gap that would then be created if the statute was construed to require some relationship to document or evidence tampering. Worth noting that the appeal that YA mentions above does not challenge the sufficiency of the felony assault and disorderly conduct charges against these defendants, only the obstruction of an official proceeding under Section 1512(c)(2) of your nation's criminal code. Here is a good article about the legal issues:

https://www.scotusblog.com/2024/04/jan- ... on-charge/

Here is an excerpt from the DC Circuit opinion, reversing the trial judge who found that the statute did not reach the defendant's conduct:

"The government asserts that the words "corruptly . . . obstructs, influences, and impedes any official proceeding" in 18 U.S.C. § 1512(c)(2) have a broad meaning that encompasses all forms of obstructive conduct, including appellees' allegedly violent efforts to stop Congress from certifying the results of the 2020 presidential election. Thus, the government contends, the district court erred when it adopted an unduly narrow interpretation of § 1512(c)(2) that limits the statute's application to obstructive conduct "with respect to a document, record, or other object."

For their part, appellees halfheartedly defend the trial court's interpretation, but more vigorously advance a different argument: that § 1512(c)(2) prohibits obstructive acts related not just to "a record, document, or other object," but also to all acts of general "evidence impairment." Appellees argue that under either the district court's document-focused reading of the statute or their own evidence-impairment theory, appellees' conduct on January 6, 2021, is beyond the reach of § 1512(c)(2). Faced with these three competing interpretations of the statute, we conclude that the government has the best of this argument."

Here's a good article about the case and its potential consequences:

https://www.citizensforethics.org/news/ ... ed-states/

What kind of halfwit interpretation is this? There's paperwork involved in ALL Senate proceedings....they RECORD what happens, and have since Congress was formed. How the F doesn't a Judge know this? They were LITERALLY there to OBSTRUCT the Senate from RECORDING Biden's win.

I've said it before, and I'll say it again.....lawyers use and/or misuse of language is flat out embarrassing sometimes.

[Seacoaster(1)]

I guess I'll park this here. Giuliani got relief from the bankruptcy court to contest the defamation judgment in the Ruby Freeman case, through a motion to set aside the verdict or something. He lost, again. I know: shocker.

https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap ... .159.0.pdf

[Seacoaster(1)]

Text chain among Eric Herschmann, Jason Miller and Justin Clark regarding the fake electors schemes:

https://www.documentcloud.org/documents ... ain-dec-13

These folks really wanted to stage a de jure-looking coup in 2020-21. And the GOP nominee for the 2024 election is the same guy with many of the same functionaries. Christina Bobb indicted for participation in the AZ fake electors scheme...is the RNC's czarina of "election integrity." But sure, the two parties are the same.

[njbill]

Argument not going well for The Donald, but then we are still on the questioning of his lawyer. We shall see if things change when Jack Smith’s lawyer gets up.

[Seacoaster(1)]

Argument not going well for The Donald, but then we are still on the questioning of his lawyer. We shall see if things change when Jack Smith’s lawyer gets up.

Working, unfortunately. Let us know how the SC's lawyer did.

[ardilla secreta]

Argument not going well for The Donald, but then we are still on the questioning of his lawyer. We shall see if things change when Jack Smith’s lawyer gets up.

That’s my take as well, so far.

[njbill]

There didn't seem to be any votes to adopt Trump's absolute immunity position, in toto. But then Ginny may yet work on Thomas and Alito.

There also doesn't seem to be a majority to affirm the D.C. Circuit's decision as is.

But a majority of Justices seem to be of the view that the central allegations in the indictment do not involve "official acts."

Some of the conservative justices seem to be skeptical of Smith's argument that Trump does not have immunity from criminal prosecution for official acts. Interestingly (to me), Trump's lawyer conceded that some of the allegations in the indictment involve "private," i.e., not "official" conduct. But he says the core allegations about overturning the election involve official acts for which he is immune from prosecution.

Seems as though the Court is going to write a decision that doesn't just resolve the Trump case, but which lays down some general guidelines for future similar cases (which hopefully we never have). The Court may come up with a test for what is an "official act." They also may try to draw a line defining which "official acts" are immune from criminal prosecution and which aren't.

I think the case very likely will be remanded for further proceedings to determine if the conduct that is the subject of the indictment involves "official acts" and, to the extent so, whether that conduct is subject to criminal prosecution.

I think the District Court could probably resolve those issues quickly, and with enough time for a trial to start before the election. BUT if the D.C. Circuit and/or the S.Ct. allows that decision to be appealed on an interlocutory basis, as is the case with the current appeal, there would be no chance the case goes to trial before the election. That is what I think is going to happen.

Who authors the decision? Roberts would seem to be the likely one. But maybe Sotomayor? Just what Trump would love to hear: "Justice Sotomayor delivered the opinion of the Court."

This post will self destruct in one day so it can't be quoted back at me in June when the Court issues its decision.

[SCLaxAttack]

There didn't seem to be any votes to adopt Trump's absolute immunity position, in toto. But then Ginny may yet work on Thomas and Alito.

There also doesn't seem to be a majority to affirm the D.C. Circuit's decision as is.

But a majority of Justices seem to be of the view that the central allegations in the indictment do not involve "official acts."

Some of the conservative justices seem to be skeptical of Smith's argument that Trump does not have immunity from criminal prosecution for official acts. Interestingly (to me), Trump's lawyer conceded that some of the allegations in the indictment involve "private," i.e., not "official" conduct. But he says the core allegations about overturning the election involve official acts for which he is immune from prosecution.

Seems as though the Court is going to write a decision that doesn't just resolve the Trump case, but which lays down some general guidelines for future similar cases (which hopefully we never have). The Court may come up with a test for what is an "official act." They also may try to draw a line defining which "official acts" are immune from criminal prosecution and which aren't.

I think the case very likely will be remanded for further proceedings to determine if the conduct that is the subject of the indictment involves "official acts" and, to the extent so, whether that conduct is subject to criminal prosecution.

I think the District Court could probably resolve those issues quickly, and with enough time for a trial to start before the election. BUT if the D.C. Circuit and/or the S.Ct. allows that decision to be appealed on an interlocutory basis, as is the case with the current appeal, there would be no chance the case goes to trial before the election. That is what I think is going to happen.

Who authors the decision? Roberts would seem to be the likely one. But maybe Sotomayor? Just what Trump would love to hear: "Justice Sotomayor delivered the opinion of the Court."

This post will self destruct in one day so it can't be quoted back at me in June when the Court issues its decision.

I listened to the testimony on NPR, as well as the subsequent discussion afterward. Fess up - were you on the panel? (Which was essentially 100% in agreement with your written consensus.)